01 - Laserfiche WebLink

reflected in the report the long term liability is approximately $118 million of which about $40 million is now set aside in a reserve to meet that obligation over a 30 year period. The $118 million obligation is not today's debt, it is the amount of money that needs to be aside over a 30- year period. In order to allow community input, Council concurred to continue action to the September 2, 2008 meeting: 25. Public Hearing: PAP-121, Phillip and Joanna Segundo, Appellants (PCUP-205, Janny Rocha, Applicant) to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a conditional use permit to relocate and replace the 5,000-gallon wood tank with a new 5,000-gallon poly tank in the rear yard of the existing residence located at 481 Sycamore Road. Zoning for the property is PUD-A (Planned Unit Development -Agriculture) District. Principal Planner Donna Decker gave the staff report, said the item is an appeal, described the property location, removal of vegetation, fencing, items from an aerial view of the project site, and relocation of the water tank to the adjacent wellhead. There was additional discussion regarding those mitigations but nothing new has arisen other than that the Segundo's have offered to help pay the cost of moving the tank in a more easterly direction. The details of that agreement have not been fully vetted or discussed with staff nor with Ms. Rocha as to if she has a willingness to move the tank or not. The Segundo's did indicate that if the tank, were not moved that they would prefer that a lattice be installed as previously discussed. Ms. Decker said staff recommends that the City Council deny appeal PAP 121, upholding the Planning Commission approval, PCUP-205, subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1. In response to questions of the Council, Ms. Decker explained the Planning Commission did not suggest the option of moving the tank to its original location because the property is agricultural and water tanks are a common visual in that type of property. There is also an additional cost. The cost of placing the tank at this location is approximately $8,000. The applicant was reticent to extend additional funds, not because she may not be able to, but as a waste of resources in terms of additional engineering, larger piping, and bigger well among various engineering issues. Councilmember Sullivan said that since it was there to begin with it would be operable. It would also be screened by the trees. Ms. Decker explained that it would not have the same screening because of removal of trees, although it would be screened from the vegetation that the Segundo's have provided. The Segundo's had hoped that the original redwood tank would be repaired because it was not as visible on the property. Councilmember McGovern explained the public hearing process and noted that at that point, the Segundo's could have voiced their concerns and, perhaps, had a chance to work with Ms. Rocha to have input on where the tank went. Ms. Decker said the tank was installed before the Segundo's had a chance to discuss this. Councilmember McGovern said the community looks to the Council to support the ordinances it puts in place. She expressed her understanding that Ms. Rocha would not have needed a CUP if the tank were put in the original location. Ms. Decker said it would have required a conditional use permit because there would have been overall change to this site by replacement of a component on the site. However, there has been additional discussion in terms of whether it would be located precisely at the same location. As City Council Minutes 6 August 19, 2008